BA 99­2022
: 1 :
Dt. 09.02.2022
IN THE COURT OF SESSION AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 99 OF 2022
(CNR No. MHCC02­000519­2022)
Irshad Mohd. Adil Khan
)… Applicant / Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Agripada Police Station)
)
) … Respondent
Ld. Adv. Dhaval Sangoi for Applicant/Accused.
Ld. APP. Kalpana Hire for State / Respondent.
CORAM : HER HONOUR THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE SMT. SANJASHREE J. GHARAT
(C.R. NO. 39)
DATED : 09.02.2022.
ORDER
This is an application for bail u/s. 439 of Cr.P.C. in C.R.
No. 759 of 2021 registered with Agripada Police Station for the offences
punishable u/s. 376(2)(N), 406, 506 of I.P.C.
2.

As per FIR, the complainant got married on 14.09.2020.

She got acquainted with Accused on Instagram. They started interacting
with each other. The Accused started insisting complainant to meet him
at Byculla Station. However, she refused to meet the Accused. At that
time, the Accused informed the complainant that he will not go without
meeting her. Therefore, the complainant visited the spot. The Accused
took the complainant on his motorcycle and took her to Sakinaka. He
BA 99­2022
: 2 :
Dt. 09.02.2022
took the victim in Ashray Residency Hotel. After going in the room of
Hotel, the Accused started making inappropriate touch and also started
removing her clothes. The Accused gave threats that he will disclose her
visit to her husband and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the
complainant. Thereafter, in the month of November­2020 the Accused
demanded money from the complainant. The complainant informed
that she is not having money. On which, Accused demanded her golden
ornaments and promised her to return the same after his work is done.
The complainant gave Golden ornaments of Rs. 3,20,000/­ to the
Accused. Thereafter, the Accused repeatedly took the complainant to
the Hotel alleging that he will return her ornaments and committed
sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the Accused started giving
evasive reply when complainant insisted to return the golden
ornaments. Therefore, the complainant disclosed the incident to her
in­laws and filed complaint.
3.

The Applicant / Accused claims bail on the ground that he
is falsely implicated in the present offence. The Applicant further
submits that the present FIR came to be filed after her extra marital
affair with Accused revealed to her husband. So also, the present
complaint is filed after a period of one year. It is further submitted that
the allegation of taking several ornaments worth of Rs. 3,20,000/­ is
concocted story. The substantial part of investigation including the
statement of complainant u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded.
4.

The Prosecution has raised objection to grant bail by filing
Say. It is submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the investigation is
in progress. Therefore, if the Accused is granted bail, then there will be
every possibility that Accused will tamper with the prosecution
BA 99­2022
: 3 :
Dt. 09.02.2022
evidence. So also, there is every possibility that he will threaten the
victim and prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution strongly
objected for release of Accused on bail.
5.

After going through the Prosecution case and argument
advanced it appears that the Accused preferred Criminal Bail
Application No. 3112 of 2021. The said application came to be rejected.
There is no change in circumstances. The earlier Bail Application came
to be rejected as the investigation was in progress. Even today the
investigation is not completed. Merely because the statement of victim
is recorded u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. cannot be taken as change in
circumstance for entertaining the second bail application on same
ground. The offence is serious in nature. The Accused committed
repeated sexual intercourse with complainant by compelling her to
meet. He also took her golden ornaments. The recovery is yet to be
made. Since the investigation is in progress and there is no change in
circumstances, the prayer made by the Accused for grant of bail cannot
be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass following Order :­
ORDER
Criminal Bail Application No. 99 of 2022 stands rejected.

(SANJASHREE J. GHARAT)
Additional Sessions Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court
Greater Bombay.
Date :­ 09.02.2022.
Dictation Typed on
Checked & Signed on
:­ 09.02.2022.
:­ 11.02.2022.

BA 99­2022
: 4 :
Dt. 09.02.2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
11.02.2022 at 4.25 pm
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
Date
of
Pronouncement
of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
(Y.M. SAKHARKAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
SMT. SANJASHREE J. GHARAT
(C.R. No. 39)
09.02.2022
11.02.2022
11.02.2022